CONFIDENTIAL
8. Mr Rayson said that it seemed that expectations had been
raised as to what would happen at the handover of
sovereignty, but that the obligation could not be phrased any stronger than this. Mr Fifoot pointed out that
expectations had not been raised, but had been created by
Col 306. Mr Kerby added that HMOCS had been set up as a distinct service and members had been induced by these
expectations. Mr Rayson said that Col 306 indicated that
the successor territory should meet these commitments.
Mr Fish agreed that this was the way Col 306 pointed.
9. Mr Rayson asked if the SARG was expected to default on
payment of pensions. Mr Paul explained that the Chinese had given an undertaking in the JD to continue to pay pensions
and benefits on terms no less favourable than before.
Mr Rew said that HMG would only have an obligation if the
Chinese defaulted and for this scenario the Carr-Robertson
Assurance might come into play. Mr Fish said the Carr-Robertson Assurance was intended to guarantee the payment of pensions which were already the subject of
protection under POAS. Mr Rew said the onus was on the SARG to pay the pensions, but in default of payment, the Carr-Robertson Assurance would step in. Mr Fifoot said that the Carr-Robertson Assurance dealt with aspects of continuity of service and payments. Considerations
regarding the exchange rate mechanism had not been added, but HMG was expected to take this step in Hong Kong as it
had done elsewhere.
10.
Summing up, Mr Paul said that while HMG had no clear
cut legal obligations it was certainly arguable that we had moral responsibility. It was likely that most MPs would see it in this way.
JL6AAK/4
CONFIDENTIAL